BILL ANALYSIS Ó
AB 779
Page 1
Date of Hearing: April 20, 2015
ASSEMBLY COMMITTEE ON TRANSPORTATION
Jim Frazier, Chair
AB 779
(Cristina Garcia) - As Amended April 14, 2015
SUBJECT: Environmental quality: transit priority areas
SUMMARY: Specifies that revisions to the California
Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) Guidelines establishing
criteria for determining the significance of transportation
impacts of projects within transit priority areas shall not be
effective before July 1, 2017.
EXISTING LAW:
1)Requires the Office of Planning and Research (OPR) to propose
revisions to the CEQA Guidelines to establish new criteria for
determining the significance of transportation impacts of
projects within transit priority areas that are not based on
level of service (LOS).
2)Defines "transit priority area" as an area within one-half
mile of a major transit stop (i.e., rail transit station, a
ferry terminal served by either a bus or rail transit service,
or the intersection of two or more major bus routes) that is
either existing or planned, if the planned stop is scheduled
to be completed within the planning horizon of an adopted
regional transportation plan.
AB 779
Page 2
3)Requires the new criteria to promote the reduction of
greenhouse gas emissions, the development of multi-modal
transportation networks, and a diversity of land uses.
4)Requires OPR to recommend potential metrics to measure
transportation impacts, including vehicle miles traveled,
vehicle miles traveled per capita, automobile trip generation
rates, or automobile trips generated.
5)Authorizes OPR to establish criteria for models used to
analyze transportation impacts to ensure the models are
accurate, reliable, and consistent with the intent of this
section.
6)Provides that automobile delay, as described solely by LOS or
similar measures of capacity or congestion, shall not support
a finding of significance pursuant to CEQA, except in
locations specifically identified in the guidelines, if any,
once the guidelines are certified by the Secretary of the
Natural Resources Agency.
7)Authorizes OPR to adopt CEQA Guidelines establishing metrics
for analysis of transportation impacts that are alternatives
to LOS to be used outside transit priority areas and
authorizes the metrics to include the retention of LOS where
appropriate as determined by OPR.
8)Required OPR to circulate a draft of the revisions to the CEQA
Guidelines by July 1, 2014.
FISCAL EFFECT: Unknown
COMMENTS: SB 743 (Steinberg), Chapter 386, Statutes of 2013,
among other things, directed OPR to propose revisions to the
CEQA Guidelines (Title 14 of the California Code of Regulations)
to establish new criteria for determining the significance of
transportation impacts of projects within transit priority areas
AB 779
Page 3
that are not based on LOS. The bill additionally authorized,
but did not require, OPR to apply the new criteria outside of
transit priority areas.
LOS is a measure of vehicle delay at intersections and on
roadway segments and is expressed with a letter grade ranging
from A to F. LOS A represents free-flowing traffic, while LOS F
represents congested conditions. LOS has been criticized as an
outdated metric because it does not consider person delay and
neglects transit, pedestrians, and bicycles. Many believe that
an over-reliance on LOS considerations by planners has led to
widening intersections and roadways to move automobile traffic
faster at the expense of other modes of transportation. LOS has
also been criticized as a barrier to infill and transit-oriented
development. A traffic study using LOS might find that
greenfield developments perform well because there are so few
other cars around. An urban infill project, on the other hand,
might perform poorly because it would contribute to an already
congested condition, even though residents and consumers
associated with infill projects are less likely to rely on cars
for their transportation needs.
In response to SB 743, OPR published a preliminary evaluation of
potential alternatives to LOS in December, 2013. Based on
comments received in response to that document, the office
released draft revisions to the CEQA Guidelines in August, 2014,
and accepted comments on the draft through November, 2014. The
draft proposed to replace LOS analysis with an analysis of the
vehicle miles traveled (VMT) generated by a project as a measure
of the significance of a project's transportation impacts.
OPR took a phased approach to implementation in the first draft,
proposing that the new analysis procedures would apply
immediately upon the effective date of the revised CEQA
Guidelines to projects located within one-half mile of major
transit stops and high-quality transit corridors, and statewide
AB 779
Page 4
after January 1, 2016. OPR additionally proposed allowing
jurisdictions to opt in to the new procedures regardless of
location from the time of adoption.
This bill delays any revisions to the CEQA Guidelines adopted
pursuant to SB 743 from becoming effective prior to July 1,
2017. The sponsor, the Infill Builders Federation, is concerned
that the revisions as currently drafted, while intended to
benefit infill development, may actually put infill at a greater
disadvantage by requiring infill projects to undergo an untested
VMT analysis that initially will not apply to development
projects in other areas. The sponsor is concerned that this
places both an added analysis burden and potentially an added
litigation burden on infill rather than making it easier to move
these types of projects forward.
OPR has indicated that it is likely to issue a revised draft of
the guidelines based on the nearly 200 comments it received on
the first draft, although the timing of that draft and the
extent of the changes to the first draft it might contain are
uncertain. It is not clear when OPR expects that final
revisions will be formally adopted. It may be that the next
draft will address many of the concerns raised by the sponsor of
this bill, in which case this bill may not be necessary.
However, in the event that the next draft still raises concerns,
the sponsor would like to delay implementation to provide
additional time to try to resolve them. Given the complexity of
the issue and the potential scope of the changes in question, it
makes sense to provide additional time, if necessary, to craft
an approach that best supports the state's goals of reducing
greenhouse gas emissions and developing multimodal
transportation networks.
Double referral: This bill will be referred to the Assembly
Natural Resources Committee should it pass out of this
committee.
AB 779
Page 5
REGISTERED SUPPORT / OPPOSITION:
Support
California Infill Builders Federation (Sponsor)
California Chapter, American Planning Association (if amended)
Opposition
None on file
Analysis Prepared by:Anya Lawler / TRANS. / (916) 319-2093
AB 779
Page 6